Little more understanding...?

[XxTKDPenguinxX]

I am a TKD person with several years of karate under my belt. m I have seen the schools all over and now it has perked me to the point I have to ask.

At the risk of sounding uneducated with it; is Hapkido the Korean counterpart to Akido?

 

[glad2bhere]

No.

Modern Hapkido is derived in some measure from Japanese traditions, thats true. However, early Hapkido (aka "yu sool", "kwon bup", "soo bahk") were as much influenced by Chinese traditions as Japanese, maybe more. My best guess is that the Japanese traditions get played-up more because their higher level of organization disposes them towards better use in commercial ventures. The Chinese traditions, having a more flexible or elastic organizational and curricular structure, tend not to do as well as commecial ventures. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[XxTKDPenguinxX]

Umm... What would be the Chinese arts that would have influenced Hapkido?


Just curious here... I understand that many of the Korean Martial Arts have had a great deal of Chinese and Japanese influences. From the little history that I have read, Korea was always influenced by these two countries.

 

[Black Belt FC]

Hapkido is a Korean martial art which, like Taekwondo, was influenced by a foreign style. "Hap" means harmony, "Ki" means internal energy, and "Do" means way of life. The founder of Hapkido, Grand Master Choi Yong Sul (1904-1986), was a Korean born martial artist who studied Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu in Japan under Sokaku Takeda (1859-1943). Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu is a form of Jiu Jitsu; it was also studied by Morihei Ueshiba (1883-1969), the founder of Aikido. Grand Master Choi returned to Korea after the death of Takeda and eventually developed the Hapkido style using a Jiu Jitsu influence. This influence explains why martial arts such as Hapkido, Aikido and even Judo overlap in certain techniques - they all share the same "soft" style from a Jiu Jitsu ancestry.



A "soft" style does not mean a weak style. It refers to gaining leverage against an incoming force and/or controlling its weakest point. A "soft style" can be understood from the philosophy of Hapkido. Hapkido is based upon three main concepts. The first principle is that of yielding to an incoming force, rather than offering direct resistance to it. The second is deflection, where the incoming force is rerouted away. Third is the idea of adding one's own force together with that of the incoming force, making for a powerful counterattack. In effect you neutralize the incoming force and turn it against itself.



The techniques in applying Hapkido principles differ from those of Taekwondo. Most Hapkido soft style techniques involve joint locks, holds, throws, falls and manipulating pressure points. In contrast, Taekwondo is considered a "hard" style because direct force is usually applied against an incoming one. Taekwondo relies mainly on punching, kicking, stances, taeguk forms, sparring, and breaking techniques to prepare against an incoming force. While Taekwondo students develop speed and power in their strikes, Hapkido students develop precision and timing in their escapes and holds.



There are some aspects of Taekwondo and Hapkido that overlap due to a common Korean ancestry. Being a Korean martial art, both styles use similar terminology, ranking, and formality. Taekwondo uses throws and holds similar to Hapkido; while Hapkido uses punching and kicking similar to Taekwondo. Whether a soft or hard style, the objective is the same - self defense and spiritual development.





BBFC/DC ©2003

 

[Chris from CT]

Modern Hapkido is derived in some measure from Japanese traditions, thats true. However, early Hapkido (aka "yu sool", "kwon bup", "soo bahk") were as much influenced by Chinese traditions as Japanese, maybe more.

I have a slightly different way of looking at Hapkido than Bruce. I feel that early Hapkido had little to no Chinese influence, it wasn't until Ji, Han-Jae added to the curriculum that Chinese influences were introduced.

No go with me for a sec....The reason I say that is because I consider Choi, Yong-Sul the founder and he had no other training than Japanese arts during the 30 something years he spent in Japan. (whatever he studied) This is according to what he said. This is also backed up by GM Ji, Han-Jae, GM Lim, Hyun-Soo, GM Suh, Bok-Sub and other long time Hapkido practitioners with first hand experience with Choi, Yong-Sul.

If there was Chinese influence in early Hapkido, that came from Chinese influence on the Japanese arts, especially Aikijujitsu, prior to what Choi, Yong-Sul picked up.

Is it true that there was striking, kicking and joint locking in Korea prior to Choi, Yong-Sul's Hapkido? Of course there was. Was it influenced by the Chinese? I would bet that it most certainly was. BUT seeing how Choi, Yong-Sul was brought to Japan around the age of 8 (never trained in anything prior to that) and he stayed there for around 30 years, there is greater chance of there being a stronger Japanese influence than Chinese.

From having studied a modern style and an early style (Jung Ki) of Hapkido, when discussing and getting on the mat with Japanese Daito-Ryu practitioners they have said that the Jung Ki Hapkido looks so much like what they do and it's not what they are used to seeing from a Hapkido practitioner. From this I am led to believe that early Hapkido has more Japanese influence than Chinese.

Could Choi, Yong-Sul have been influenced by all of his student's with TKD backgrounds? Absolutely, but I don't believe that is enough to consider a more Chinese influence over Japanese.

I believe that the Chinese had a dramatic effect on Korean arts, but as far as Hapkido, that did not come until later on. IMVHO

Just hanging out on the other side of the same mountain. :asian:

Take care.

 

[Disco]

http://www.hapkido-info.net/html/hapkido_info.com.html :asian:

 

[Chris from CT]

At the risk of sounding uneducated with it; is Hapkido the Korean counterpart to Akido?

Don't sweat it!

From interviews with Choi, Yong-Sul and other people mentioned in my last post, Choi Yong-Sul studied the art of Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu. Whether he studied Daito Ryu or not will always be a hot topic that's up for debate.

Anyway... Daito Ryu is the one of the arts that Morihei Ueshiba studied prior to the creation of Aikido. Depending on what you consider a “counterpart,” I would consider Hapkido and Aikido more like illegitimate brothers. :cheers:

Take care

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear P:

"....Umm... What would be the Chinese arts that would have influenced Hapkido?...."

That depends entirely on how far back you want to follow this subject.

If you take it back through the Kwon Bup Chapter of the MYTBTJ, that takes you back to 1567 and the publication of General Qis' Boxing Canon in the JIN XIAO SHIN SHU. The generals' Boxing Canon was traditionally ascribed to 16 different Boxing Styles but is generally agreed to have been mostly Taizu Long Fist. That Kwon Bup Chapter I cited has been used by a number of KMA personalities to authenticate the material they used. Hwang Kee (TSD Master) and Gen Choi (TKD Master) were probably the best known.

Now if you don't want to go back as far as all that, Korea has been host to at least four major Chinese Boxing systems for quite some time, including Long Fist, Praying Mantis, Tan Tui and Tai Chi. There is also the practice of Ship Pal Gi (Lit. "18 Weapons"). All of these arts have both concussive as well as grappling applications. Just about ever well-known personality has reported dabbling in some art over and above whatever they learned from Choi Yong Sul, including Joo Bang Lee, In Hyuk Suh, and Ji Han Jae. I think the issue that most people get caught on is the use of the term "hapkido". The problem with that slippery slope is that it always comes out at the foot of the same hill--- "what I do is authentic and what everyone is doing is not".
I'm afraid I've been around the block one too many times with that sort of discussion to go again.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Chris from CT]

Just about ever well-known personality has reported dabbling in some art over and above whatever they learned from Choi Yong Sul, including Joo Bang Lee, In Hyuk Suh, and Ji Han Jae. I think the issue that most people get caught on is the use of the term "hapkido".

I have to agree with Bruce here. Which would support my previous statement about the Chinese influence on Hapkido came later on and did not stem from an ancient time or at Hapkido's conception.

The problem with that slippery slope is that it always comes out at the foot of the same hill--- "what I do is authentic and what everyone is doing is not".
I'm afraid I've been around the block one too many times with that sort of discussion to go again.

Not always, but way too often! :asian:

Take care

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The notion of Chinese influence in the KMA is likely overblown.

Following the Japanese occupation there was a strong movement to disavow the Japanese roots of the arts being taught in Korea. "Hanification" took place, with Korean instructors pointing to various ancient texts, wall murals, etc. to give a Sino/Korean lineage to the KMA that while extant, probably wasn't as strong as many would have liked.

The Koreans hated the Japanese for crushing their culture, raping their women and conscripting their men to fight for the Emperor. I recall trying to talk to my GM about the karate influence on TKD, and he very firmly said, "No. No Japanese." End of conversation. It wasn't to be discussed. His animosity towards the Japanese was deeply ingrained.

There seems to be a ready acceptance of the mythical in the Sino/Korean tradition. Gung Fu schools trace their lineage to the Shaolin temple, regardless of how weak the evidence might be for that connection. Koreans have embraced that tendency and have created sources for their arts that are spurious.

To Americans the stories are attractive. We want to believe that our art has a romantic tradition rooted in antiquity and that our lineage connects us with great masters of the old days. Such yearnings are found in the creation of Western mythology. We want to be connected to Arthur, Roland, Holgar and Barbarossa. There are no martial traditions linking us to those greats, however.

Thus, we look to the East.


Regards,


Steve

 

[glad2bhere]

Dear Steve:

I don't disagree with the points that you raise. All of those motives are both very Human and very common. But what of the connections that do exist? The reason that I ask is that the Chinese connections are documented and still pursued. What I find incomprehensible is that despite all of the terrible cultural damage that the Japanese did to the Korean nation, the Koreans themselves would use ANYTHING Japanese! This reminds me of the terrible damage that the Japanese did to Korea during the Imjin Wars (1592-1598). Less than 6 years later the Koreans were trading with the Japanese as though nothing had happened. Whats up about that? Nor can I ignore that the Korean people themselves volunteered to join the 22,000-man Korean police force, under Japanese authority, and helped hunt-down, arrest and torture their own countrymen in the Korean Resistance. I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

As for "borrowing" traditions, well, the Japanese have always made a big thing about how the Koreans take Japanese sword, for instance, give it Korean nomenclature and call it Korean. I suppose an arguement can be made for this. But strangely, you don't see the Koreans taking tons of Chinese sword (WHICH ACTUALLY MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATES THEIR INDIGENOUS SWORD WORK) and re-labelling THAT material, yes?

To put this susinctly, if there is such a terrible hatred of things Japanese by the Koreans what the heck are they doing with Aikido, Judo, Karate and Kendo since WW II, let alone TKD when they already have Korean martial traditions such as Archery, Ssireum, Taek Kyon, and Kum Bup, Ship Pal Gi and Kwon Bup of their own? Why are there over 700 personalities in Korean government identified as collaborators from WW II? One could be forgiven for thinking that the Korean trots out his injuries only when it is expedient to his issues and rarely when it is consistent with the historical facts. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The reason that I ask is that the Chinese connections are documented and still pursued. What I find incomprehensible is that despite all of the terrible cultural damage that the Japanese did to the Korean nation, the Koreans themselves would use ANYTHING Japanese! This reminds me of the terrible damage that the Japanese did to Korea during the Imjin Wars (1592-1598). Less than 6 years later the Koreans were trading with the Japanese as though nothing had happened. Whats up about that? Nor can I ignore that the Korean people themselves volunteered to join the 22,000-man Korean police force, under Japanese authority, and helped hunt-down, arrest and torture their own countrymen in the Korean Resistance. I'm sorry, but I don't get it.

As for "borrowing" traditions, well, the Japanese have always made a big thing about how the Koreans take Japanese sword, for instance, give it Korean nomenclature and call it Korean. I suppose an arguement can be made for this. But strangely, you don't see the Koreans taking tons of Chinese sword (WHICH ACTUALLY MORE CLOSELY APPROXIMATES THEIR INDIGENOUS SWORD WORK) and re-labelling THAT material, yes?

To put this susinctly, if there is such a terrible hatred of things Japanese by the Koreans what the heck are they doing with Aikido, Judo, Karate and Kendo since WW II, let alone TKD when they already have Korean martial traditions such as Archery, Ssireum, Taek Kyon, and Kum Bup, Ship Pal Gi and Kwon Bup of their own? Why are there over 700 personalities in Korean government identified as collaborators from WW II? One could be forgiven for thinking that the Korean trots out his injuries only when it is expedient to his issues and rarely when it is consistent with the historical facts. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Bruce,

700 "collaborators?" They're currently serving in posts in the Korean government? My GM is over sixty and he was a child during the occupation. How old are these collaborators? Are these allegations of collaboration in any way related to the politics of the peninsula? Think about it: We have people calling John Kerry a "Communist". While some on this forum might believe that he is, others will clearly see the analogy. In Korea there are those that oppose re-unification and call those who favor it "communists." Bottom line: Name calling is a favored method of leveling political opponents.

The infrastructure for the Japanese martial arts was in place at the end of WWII. There was no infrastructure for the Korean arts you mentioned. (Indeed, they were repressed by the Japanese.) Karate, Judo, Kendo, Aiki, were taught in the schools and were popular. Following the occupation these arts were divorced from their Japanese roots in the wave of nationalism that sprang up after the Korean war. Even today there are Tang Soo Do and Tae Kwon Do schools that practice the Shotokan canon of kata. There aren't many of those schools, granted.

All this said, Bruce, I recognize that indigenous arts and Chinese arts have influenced the KMA to a degree. As to what degree of pedigree, we will likely disagree. See? Sorry...give me a rhyme and I have to run with it.

Regards,


Steve

 

[glad2bhere]

OK, bad poetry to one side..... :ultracool

I was drawing on UNDER THE BLACK UMBRELLA (Hildi Kang; 2001) as well as the website. No doubt there are some politcal motives involved. For myself I am still trying to reconcile the animosity with the mimicry.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Bruce,

The animosity you well understand. As for mimicry, it was needed to fill a void.

All this aside, many of the Korean martial arts have evolved over the years into their own unique systems, regardless of the traditions they draw upon. Tae Kwon Do today is--for the most part--different from the art as practiced in the 1960's. I suspect Hapkido has evolved as well.

Getting back to the original question: Is Hapkido the Korean counterpart to Aikido? It is far closer than anything else, and one can clearly see the similarities. Tae Kwon Do/Tang Soo Do could be considered the counterpart to karate given that analgous reasoning. In educating the public and the novice we can aknowledge the connections to Japan, but point out where the arts have diverged. They stand on their own and apart, and demand a separate recognition.


Regards,


Steve

 

[glad2bhere]

For myself, I draw one more distinction and that has to do with the era during which people state they trained with Choi. I find considerable similarity among those folk who trained with Choi up until about 1970. The curriculums have considerably more kicking material and the grappling technique is much more "yu sool" (J. "Ju-jutsu"). After that period the Hapkido practitioners seem to have dropped almost all of the kicking material and have made the grappling much more similar to Aikido. In fact Myung Jae Nam of International Hapkido Federation fame proposed a much tighter relationship with the Aiki arts of Japan and openly advocated this for years. I am not sure if this is still the position of the organization or not. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

[Master Todd Miller]

Is Hapkido the Korean counterpart to Aikido?

Not really, Hapkido is more closely related to Aiki-Jujitsu. Some of the differences are that Aikido uses much larger circles than Traditional Hapkido as taught by Doju Nim Choi. Aikido's curriculum is much more paired down compared to Hapkido. Hapkido useses striking and kicking techniques where Aikido does so only to practice defense against striking. The only similarities are both arts use joint manipulations.

Bruce,

Doju Nim Choi always taught 10 basic kicking techniques. Most of his students came to him with TKD, Yudo backgrounds.

Take care
Todd Miller
Korea Jungki Hapkido & Guhapdo Assc.
www.millersmudo.com